User talk:Noleander/Archive 6

Your edit to Tikhon Khrennikov
Hello. Recently, you made a revert to Tikhon Khrennikov which included material that falls under the scope of your topic ban. I will assume good faith and ask that you pay closer attention to the material you are editing in the future. Viriditas (talk) 19:19, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No revert is necessary, as far as I can see. But, you did violate the terms of your topic ban, which I think you now see.  I think it is best if we chalk this one up to an innocent mistake and leave it at that.  However, if it happens again,  I will express my concern in the appropriate venue.  The edit history shows that you were going through the RfC listings offering your opinion and editing accordingly.  Assuming good faith, one can see how this could be a simple oversight on your part, however, someone more conspiratorial than myself might think you were testing the boundaries of the topic ban.  Best to forget about it for now. Viriditas (talk) 03:16, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Christianity and violence
Please read my comment on Talk:Judaism and violence. It references last year's contentious discussion over Christianity and violence and provides the insight that I took away from that discussion. I concluded that the problem was that any attempt to discuss only the examples of violence was going to cause some people to feel that there was a POV imbalance prejudging the question of whether Christianity is a violent religion. (I obviously didn't share this perspective but I came to see that other people such as you, Tryptofish and Tirronan might feel this way so I figured it was more productive to accomodate your POV rather than continuing the dispute.) You may not have reached the same conclusion that I did but I figured I'd share my view with you and perhaps open a dialogue.

NB: It goes without saying that Judaism and violence falls under your ARBCOM-imposed topic ban so obviously you won't want to respond to my comment on that Talk Page. Christianity-related topics are not part of your topic ban and my comment really focuses on Christianity and violence so it should be OK for you to make comments at Talk:Christianity and violence as long as you don't reference Judaism in your comments.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 15:02, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm going to step in here, and say something that I'm pretty sure Noleander understands, but that Richard appears not to understand. Noleander really shouldn't comment about this anywhere. Period. Nor should he be asked to. There is a 100% likelihood that someone looking for an issue to raise would come along and make a case that it would only be Wiki-lawyering to claim that it would be permissible under the ban. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:05, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Richard: Thanks for the info, but - as Trypto says - I'll have to avoid this topic for awhile.  Cheers.  --Noleander (talk) 18:03, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Good. And Noleander, I'm happy to see that you have been finding other areas in which to contribute. Hang in there! Best, --Tryptofish (talk) 18:15, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well... I thought I made it clear i nmy comment above that I was asking for Noleander's input about Christianity and violence, not about Judaism and violence but, in the interest of being even more above reproach than Caesar's wife, let's just drop this part of the discussion and not give anyone an excuse to throw stones. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 04:58, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Discussion of criteria on List of sovereign states
Thank you for your responses! It looks like your idea is getting quite a bit of support. I'd be grateful if you would persue it as a viable solution. I'm not allowed to comment on the RfC page, but could you take a look at this idea which is quite similar to yours and tell me what you think? Could you also answer either "yes" or "no" in the survey section? This is for the reference of participants to identify whether or not there is a problem with the arrangement of Kosovo in the list. Thanks and best regards,  Night w   16:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay ... I'll look at that proposal and comment there. --Noleander (talk) 19:19, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hello again. The request process has been closed and I've asked editors to address your proposal. If you could continue to clarify any confusion and address any issues, I'd greatly appreciate it. Regards,  Night w   04:06, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay with this. Your proposal has been included in a preference survey on how to divide the list. I would appreciate your response. Thanks,  Night w   13:38, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeshu
Your POV tag justified. Did you get any support for cleaning it up? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:14, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No, that discussion just sort of faded away. I'm taking a vacation from editing religion-based articles, so I won't be able to help in that area for awhile.  Good luck.  --Noleander (talk) 01:18, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Gregor Robertson: politician


A tag has been placed on Gregor Robertson: politician requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. noq (talk) 13:31, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was the one that added the PROD tag to the (non existent) article, because the corresponding Talk page needed to be deleted. Maybe I should have added the  PROD tag to the Talk page? --Noleander (talk) 13:34, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

The Femininity article
Hey, Noleander. Do you mind weighing in some more? I'm just not understanding the resistance; it makes no sense whatsoever, and I'm not sure what else to do. Is this how Wikipedia truly works? 209.226.31.161 (talk) 00:52, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'll take a look and see if I can contribute. --Noleander (talk) 14:10, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

University of International Relations
Given that you were so helpful previously on the University of International Relations, I was wondering if you could weigh in on the ongoing (and exhausting) debate over the inclusion of the Jamestown Foundation's China Brief as a source? Homunculus (duihua) 15:18, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll see if I can contribute somehow. --Noleander (talk) 22:10, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks again. I would also like to direct your attention to the two non-autoconfirmed users Watner and Admick, both of them brand new SPAs, who arrived on the page and started deleting sourced content without explanation, and did so repeatedly (this is ongoing, obviously). Their sole raison d'être seems to be burying the University's connection to the Ministry of State Security or Ministry of Public Security. I suspect that this article will be subject to such edits for as long as it is in existence; this level of transparency on Wikipedia is probably not conducive to the institute's efforts to recruit foreign students and organize scholarly exchanges. I am not sure how best to protect it the page, or to get anything done on it. Any ideas? Homunculus (duihua) 06:23, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If you suspect that the three new accounts (User:Watner, User:Admick, and User:Antirumor) are editing WP in an inappropriate way, you have a couple of choices: you can file an "Incident" notice at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, which is a page where you can report any sort of misbehavior, and - if justified - a WP admin may block the offending editors. Or, if you think the 3 accounts are all the same person, just using multiple accounts to deceitfully create a fake majority, that is called "sock puppetry" and you file a report at  Sockpuppet investigations (probably without the "checkuser" option).  That page also will result in an investigation and may result in blocks of the accounts.  Each process takes about a week.  Let me know if you have any question how to initiate those processes.   --Noleander (talk) 14:33, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Something about this is so unsavory to me. Thanks for walking me through it, though—I took your advice and filed a report. If you're game, I may solicit your help in the future. Homunculus (duihua) 03:02, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Your sock puppet report at Sockpuppet investigations/Watner seems to show that there is deceitful editing happening. If the admins concur, those accounts should be blocked within a week or so.  After that, you can resume editing the article without disruption from those accounts. --Noleander (talk) 13:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Inquiry on AfDs
Hi Noleander, I'm interestd in the AfDs process in Wikipedia and notice that you once involved in AfDs. I'm not sure whether you find that some discussers are admins while some are not. I'm just wondering whether you care about the adminships of the participants in deletion discussions. Does the referee's adminship affect your attitude towards the result of AfDs? Thanks. Bluesum (talk) 03:43, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * In the discussion at an AfD, the status of a person as admin is not relevant. I (and I suppose most editors) ignore it.  It might be that admins are more familiar with WP policies, in general, than non-admins, but that is just an inconclusive statistical correlation.    Admins do have a special role when it comes time to close the AfD: they are permitted to close it (and delete the article) while non-admins cannot.  But during the discussion it does not matter.  --Noleander (talk) 14:24, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. I agree with your point. :) Bluesum (talk) 02:15, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Canada under British rule (1763–1867)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Canada under British rule (1763–1867). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

''You have received this notice because your name is on Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 05:18, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Shanghai
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Shanghai. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

''You have received this notice because your name is on Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 05:20, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Vaccine controversy
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Vaccine controversy. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

''You have received this notice because your name is on Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 07:03, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

RfC
Hello, Could I remind you to look into this RfC please. My opponents failed to provide any single source backing their arguments through all this time. I would appreciate your input. Thanks. Angel670  talk  08:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure. I put my comments there at the RfC. --Noleander (talk) 15:33, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Do you mind looking a bit more please? There are two main sources which have been missed in the summary of sources. Also I have a question on the Wiki rule specifying the number of sources required to support particular title. I feel I provided plenty so far. Would appreciate your advise. Angel670   talk  10:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, could you please respond here. Thanks in advance. --  Ashot  ( talk ) 21:06, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Maratha, Santalaris and Aloda massacre
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Maratha, Santalaris and Aloda massacre. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

''You have received this notice because your name is on Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 17:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Old talk
Hi, I noted your sensible comments on Talk:Jesus in the Talmud. I have proposed a merge and would like to close this down, move across the giant tracts of duplicate material from Yeshu and leave Yeshu with only content relative to the name, as per Isa (name) and Yeshua (name). In ictu oculi (talk) 09:18, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm glad my comments were perceived as sensible :-)  I'm taking a vacation from religion-oriented articles for awhile, but it looks like you have a good grasp of the issues, so I'm sure my help is not needed.  Good luck!  --Noleander (talk) 16:07, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

A little bit of hilarity
If you recall from the investigation related to the University of International Relations, the admins identified two dozen sock puppets whose edits fell into two categories: promoting the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, or obfuscating on the connection between the MSS and the University of International Relations. I assumed maybe the user was a student in the mid-west, or possibly two people on a shared university computer, or something. As of this morning, I'm pretty sure that the puppet master is from Beijing. Check out the diffs:

As frustrating and wasteful as this guy has been, I derive a little bit of pleasure from imagining the kind of person whose dual passions in life are Chinese spy craft and Milwaukee.Homunculus (duihua) 16:27, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that is a rather curious intersection of interests :-) --Noleander (talk) 17:09, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

your thoughts please :-)
Hi Noleander, could you please have a look at this issue and share your thoughts on it? Thanks --DeVerm (talk) 18:22, 30 July 2011 (UTC).
 * DeVerm: I responded at that Talk page. --Noleander (talk) 04:11, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for responding to the RfC!
Hi, Noleander. I would like to personally thank you for responding to the RfC and subsequently starting a discussion on how genres should be sourced; the subsequent discussion cleared up some confusion I had. I might have sounded a little grumpy during the discussion as I was worried about the lack of sources for older works, and I would like to apologize if at anytime I sounded offensive. Again, thank you for taking your time and responding to the RfC. Here's a piece of (virtual) cookie as a token of appreciation. Thanks! -- クラ  ウド  ６６８  02:15, 31 July 2011 (UTC) 

Cloud668 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!


 * Thanks! It was yummy :-) --Noleander (talk) 04:12, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Heritability of IQ
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Heritability of IQ. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

''You have received this notice because your name is on Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 22:38, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Lede
I reworded my old RfC. You are welcome to comment. Pass a Method  talk  18:23, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, I commented there. --Noleander (talk) 20:10, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar
Thanks! I have never had a barnstar before. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:13, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Google News Archive search
A normal Google News search just returns recent results, maybe within the past few weeks. A Google News Archive search will go back over 100 years. Use the tool at the top of the AfD debate, but then you can change the search key words to disambiguate and refine the search. Often, when you find an interesting snippet, you can copy and paste the last five or six words of the quote into the search box and recover more text. Sometimes I've done this many times and recovered hundreds of words from an article behind a pay wall. Hope this helps.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  21:14, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info! --Noleander (talk) 21:39, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Possible COI
Some interactions that you may have been involved in are being discussed at Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Blackvisionit. Guy Macon (talk) 23:06, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notice. I'll look at that noticeboard and see if I can contribute anything useful. --Noleander (talk) 23:08, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Parsifal EU
You kindly commented on Parsifal, saying "petered out". Did you see that the recommendations take it to the future? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:36, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes. Thanks for pointing that out.  I'll double check, and see if that influenced my comments ... but it still may not be sufficient. --Noleander (talk) 22:38, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Floppy article invitation
Hi, you're invited in taking active part in editing/patrolling/reviewing Floppy disk hardware emulator. Blackvisionit (talk) 12:32, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info ... I'll take a look. --Noleander (talk) 13:54, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

inre Articles for deletion/Kwon Hyi-ro
I've done some work on the article. At the AFD you wrote "I don't see a single source that describes it as a noble cause vis-a-vis discrimination against Koreans in Japan". In my research, and among other sources, I found Zainichi (Koreans in Japan): diasporic nationalism and postcolonial identity, where he and Korean perception of his incedent is spoken of in some detail 40 years after the event.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 05:32, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, that sounds good. Go ahead and post that source (and any others you found) in that AfD. --Noleander (talk) 14:35, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Done and thanks. Glad to have helped.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 01:45, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Java (programming language)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Java (programming language). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

''You have received this notice because your name is on Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 17:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Collapsed discussion on RM at Talk:Tree shaping
I fixed your hidden template. BTW, you may want to look at the discussion User_talk:Blackash, particularly the link to the arbcom discussion, which appears to indicate that backlash's !vote may be acceptable. I haven't studied the arbcom decision carefully but, on the face of it, Elonka's conclusion appears correct. --rgpk (comment) 14:47, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for fixing that template.  The discussion you mention above was addressing some text thata user Blackash added about a week ago to an RfC concerning the article name.  I think it violated the ban, but Elonka did not.  I had no strong feelings on it, so the text stayed in place. That was all in the earlier RfC.  The text I just collapsed today was in the (current) Request for Move, which is most definitely covered by the ban. --Noleander (talk) 14:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * OK. No worries. I guess I misunderstood the discussion above. --rgpk (comment) 03:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Noleander, and thank you for participating in the Tree shaping RM. Might I ask though, that since you have participated, that if you have concerns about the actions of banned parties at the Tree shaping discussion, you allow uninvolved administrators (such as myself) to take care of them?  You are of course welcome to bring up your concerns, but it would be better if you did not take actions such as striking out a comment or collapsing it.  It's better if neutral parties, who have no opinion one way or the other on the naming of the article, take these kinds of actions. Thanks, --Elonka 18:41, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I hear you, but I disagree with your interpretation of the ArbCom ruling. ArbCom only permitted  "proposals"  posted at the "commencement" of the discussion, probably in the RfC that the ArbCom explicitly discussed (not the subsequent RM).  The banned editors are engaging in lengthy polemics in the middle of the RM discussion.   Like I said, I don't really care about tree shaping, I just care about minimizing drama.  I think a good compromise solution is to move their comments up into the RfC section. --Noleander (talk) 18:52, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand your concerns, but feel that the best interpretation of the ArbCom ruling is to allow each of the parties to make a statement in the RM. That way outside parties can more easily see the different thoughts in a summarized format, which I believe is the intent of the ruling. Also, once all three have weighed in, since they have different views, it'll probably balance itself out. Keep in mind also that this is not a vote, but a discussion.  I am confident that any reviewing admin will weigh comments accordingly. --Elonka 19:00, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Elonka you are saying You think this is best so You are deciding the ArbCom ruling should be X. But that is not how it works. The ruling is a ruling, if anything is not clear about its interpretation we should go back and have them clarify it. We don't get to interpret it the way we want. If so Noleander and I would interpret it different than you and why should you be able to choose rather than us? Colincbn (talk) 03:19, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Your comment at FGM
Thanks for your comment at the FGM RFC. Do you mind if I move your comment down to the "threaded discussion" section? Or could you do this? That way the statement is in one location, and responses are in a separate section. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 21:07, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem: I've moved it per your request.   The reason I put it outside the discussion section is that it is sometimes convenient to have RfC responses in two sections:  (a) a threaded discussion; and (b) a WP:Straw poll.   My intent was to start the straw poll section (that is, a bulleted synopsis of editors' opinions) which was independent of the threaded discussion, which can sometimes get very lengthy and verbose, and it becomes hard to see the big picture. --Noleander (talk) 21:17, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
I've posted your suggestion for a compromise in a new section and welcome your thoughts on it. Veriss (talk) 20:05, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, I commented there. --Noleander (talk) 20:31, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Rick Perry
Thanks for your kind note. Whoever started the RfC should have prominently posted the RS supporting the inclusion. I think most editors (me included) don't have time to wade through miles of Talk page squabbling or do their own searches to find them. ; ) - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

your RFC response
Hi Noleander, forgive me responding here but I know that any response at the talk page is going to be mobbed. I feel you missed the point. You asked "Does the sentence accurately reflect what the sources say?" To that question, it accurately reflects what some of the sources say. Others simply refer to allegations of hiding and possibly manipulation of data. Those sources that want to mock the allegations of course refer to "allegations of conspiracy". But what I really wanted to ask you is how you know that (quote) "The linked-to article does indeed discuss the alleged conspiracy". How do you know that reference to a "belief in a scientific conspiracy" has anything to do with what is discussed at our page "global warming conspiracy theory"? On the one hand, "belief in a scientific conspiracy", if we assume the simplest and likeliest meaning, refers to a belief that Phil Jones and Mike Mann and possibly others from the CRU conspired to fabricate the hockey stick graph found in the Third Assessment Report. On the other hand, "global warming conspiracy theory" seems to be original research derived largely from the work of Naomi Oreskes about the origins of the fossil fuel funded conspiracy that goes all the way back to the 1980s to confuse the public about global warming. Isn't this a case of terribly flawed original research? Alex Harvey (talk) 03:24, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I can see your point about Original Research.  I guess my point was that OR issues for the global warming conspiracy theory should be addressed at that article's Talk page.  My comment simply assumed that that was a valid article, and I was just talking about the validity of a wiki-link pointing to that article.  But you are right about the potential OR. --Noleander (talk) 04:04, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well there are two OR issues. (1) OR issues at global warming conspiracy theory itself which in my opinion can only be resolved by deleting the page altogether - and after two failed AfDs it's clear that's not going to happen; (2) so if we then agree hypothetically that global warming conspiracy theory refers to something that wasn't made up by Wikipedia, then how do we know that source X which refers to "a scientific conspiracy" also refers to the same thing as our article "global warming conspiracy theory"? I don't think it's a potential OR; it is irreducibly OR. For it not to be OR, the source would need to (a) acknowledge prior awareness of a concept "global warming conspiracy theory" and then (b) explicitly link the climategate allegations with this concept. And of course, there is no source in existence which does this. Alex Harvey (talk) 08:48, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Re: Seeking Compromise
Hey Noleander, not sure if you got the chance to notice, but I posted a response to your question on the Rick Perry talk page area. Kessy628 (talk) 18:13, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info. It looks like that RfC has stalled with about a 50/50 split.  I don't know if I have anything more to contribute.  I'll take a look again and see if I can provide any input.  --Noleander (talk) 19:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah its definitely stalled, though I think its beyond a 50/50 split in favor of exclusion. In any case, the SPA hasn't posted there in a while, and he was the 1 really driving to include it, so I'm not sure if anyone is going to really care if it stays as is. Kessy628 (talk) 20:07, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Itō calculus
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Itō calculus. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

''You have received this notice because your name is on Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 17:36, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:August 2011 Gaza Strip air raids
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:August 2011 Gaza Strip air raids. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

''You have received this notice because your name is on Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 20:35, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Las Vegas
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Las Vegas. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

''You have received this notice because your name is on Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 13:05, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Animal Farm
Thank you for chiming in on the debate. I think it's quieted down at this point (likely in part because one dissenter got blocked for one week on an unrelated note for edit-warring), but I appreciate the support regardless. In the end, as you likely noted, I got a bit aggressive about it, went WP:BOLD and threw the ball into their court to provide policy-supported arguments supporting their arguments rather than just making claims without links (which is somewhat ironic given the nature of the disagreement). So, hopefully we're done beating the dead horse, but again, your feedback is greatly appreciated! Doniago (talk) 18:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. I'll monitor the page and see if any more discussion arises. --Noleander (talk) 19:03, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello Noleander
You remember me? We had a discussion on the Zaza article and I promised to help to create a new section. My Suggestion for title is " The Zaza as part of the Kurdish People". First of all before I start to send you sources for this new section, I wanted to go deeper into the sources used by the persons whom I had a conflict. I looked at the Version and what I see is that the sources are misinterpreted by the editor to create such a conflict. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zaza_people&oldid=446331552#Notes Let us look at the first 3 Sources. 1. Ludwig Paul, "Zaza(ki) - Dialekt, Sprache, Nation?" in Gernot Wiessner, Bärbel Beinhauer-Köhler (et.), Religion und Wahrheit: Religionsgeschichtliche Studien: Festschrift für Gernot Wiessner zum 65. Geburtstag, Otto Harrassowitz Verlag, 1998, ISBN 9783447039758, pp. 385-399.

This is also a Source used by me. Actually if you read this source clearly you see really no were a mentioning of Zaza being not Kurdish. The whole article is based on whatever Zazaki is in linguistic Question Kurdish or not. The Author even clarifies that he has no opinion on wether the Zaza are Kurds or not. Here I quote the small printed part on page 385.http://books.google.de/books?id=LuVSkpVuAkAC&pg=PA385&lpg=PA385&dq=Ludwig+Paul,+%22Zazaki)+-+Dialekt,+Sprache,+Nation?&source=bl&ots=G3uUb2nA3d&sig=VBridxvPQvyfI-HTFMjKgKiPZro&hl=de&ei=n35XTsDKMvDc4QTSoNWNDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CD4Q6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=Ludwig%20Paul%2C%20%22Zazaki)%20-%20Dialekt%2C%20Sprache%2C%20Nation%3F&f=false

''Wenn ich von "Kurden und Zaza" spreche, so ist dies eine vorläufige analystische Trennung, die noch nicht implizieren soll, das beide getrennte Etnizitäten bzw. "Völker" darstellen. Ob dies der Fall ist, soll ja gerade hier festgestellt werden. ''

I translate ( I am a native German Speaker in contrast to the User who used this as Source)

If I talk about "Kurds and Zaza", so is this a provisional analysts distinction, which should not imply, that both are separate ethnicities or Folks, If this is the case is supposed to be determinded 

Than when we read the whole work, we see that the whole article is based on linguistic differences between the Kurmanji language ( Kurdish is used here as synonym for this) and Zazaki. In fact Ludwig Paul comes to the conclusion that Most Zaza consider themselves as Kurds and that they have a ethno-cultural unity together with the Kurmanji Speakers as Kurds. Page 386. I quote and translate again.

Die Mehrzahl der Sprecher des Zazaki bezeichnet sich heute als Kurden und hält ihre Sprache für einen kurdischen Dialekt.

The majority of the Zazaki Speakers call themselves Kurds and consider their language as a kurdish Dialect.

Please let it be translated by someone who knows German to see if I am saying the truth or not. In other words the whole article is based on Thesis whether Zazaki ist a Kurdish dialect or not. He comes to the conclusion that the language Zazaki is not a Kurdish dialect but he doesn´t come to the conclusion that Zaza are not Kurds. So this alone is suspicious and I cant understand how this is used as source to claim that Zaza are not Kurds.

Source 2. Ludwig Paul, "The position of Zazaki among West Iranian languages. Again a linguistic classification and does not belong to the section if whether Zaza are Kurds or not.

Source 3. Krisztina Bodrogi, "Turks, Kurds, or a people in their own right? http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1478-1913.1999.tb02757.x/abstract Again the source has no position in wether Zaza as a ethnic Group are Kurds or not. In fact it is simply a work on criteria which decide whether a Group is a separate People or not. And ikt also doesen´t give us informations how many Zaza really consider themselves as Kurds and how many not. All sources which work on this clearly point out that virtually all Zaza consider themselves as Kurds, Martin Van Bruinessen (means the number of Zaza which do not consider themselves as Kurds is so small that someone wouldn´t even recognize them). All three sources neither supply or claim that Zaza are not Kurd. The Sources simply imply on that there has started a discussion in some circles about whether Zaza are Kurds or no. This makes me suspicious that the User did not even make himself the work to deal with the Sources. Thhis makes me assume the User has deliberately misinterpreted the Sources to deceive Wikipedia.

I already had a long and detailed discussion about this with the Admin Dougweller. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dougweller&oldid=437357255

''The reason why some users come and remove sources and try to prove the Zaza not being ethnically Kurdish is because of politics. Many Turks and some assimilated diaspora Zaza try to change the Zaza article by using the linguistic issue as a reason to claim the Zaza as a separate group. This is only a issue since the political movement of Kurds developed in Turkey. So I beg you if next time someone removes or adds new Source to claim Zaza ethnically as non kurdish. Please make sure if the source is making this statement about Zazaki and kurdish using linguistic issues or is talking about Zaza being not Kurds in ethno-cultural way because this makes really a difference and people usually equate linguistic with ethnicity/identity while this is not the case. This is also the reason why some of the people having a political agenda were unfortunately so successfully in Wikipedia. They use the linguistic part as a way to create a new identity and try so to split the Kurds from inside and weak the political movement in Turkey. Thats why it are usually users from Turkey or sometimes Germany (where the Turks are the biggest minority) are involved in this. This whole issue is based on politics. The best examples that a language doesen´t makes a identity are the Afghans, Swiss, Indian, Chinese. What makes a identity is not the language. We all know that a language is called after its people and not the other way around. The most important thing in forming a identity are history, culture snd all over it the self-designation in my opinion and not only the language. I can be a perfect German speakers this wouldn´t change my identity if I consider myself as a Kurd.

Hope I could give you at least a small picture about the political issue going on in Turkey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikisupporting (talk • contribs) 13:17, 1 July 2011 (UTC) You raise some interesting and important issues about ethnic identity. Unfortunately I simply don't have the time to follow this up and will have to remove myself from this debate. I know this is disappointing to you but it's necessary for me. You might also wish to raise an WP:RfC but look at the other links also on the RfC page. If you need help doing it (as opposed to my taking part in it) I can offer that. Dougweller (talk) 07:54, 2 July 2011 (UTC)''

In other words, the sources neither claim that the Zaza as People are not Kurds neither do they show facts for this. One of the sources even clarifies that the Zaza mainly consider themselves as Kurds. I hope I could at least clarify my point somehow. Greets Wikisupporting (talk) 12:23, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * WikiSupporting: I posted my reply on the Talk page of the article, here: Talk:Zaza_people. --Noleander (talk) 14:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I replied on the talk page of the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Zaza_people#Request_for_Comments Wikisupporting (talk) 22:48, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello Noleander.

I made some thoughts about the Zaza Article and based on the Sources we took together this is what I propose for the first part of the Article. ''The Zazas, Kird, Kirmanc or Dimilis[1] are an ethnic Kurdic*(1) or Iranic people*(2) whose native language is Zazaki spoken in eastern Anatolia. They primarily live in the eastern Anatolian provinces, such as Adıyaman, Aksaray, Batman, Bingöl, Diyarbakır, Elazığ, Erzurum, Erzincan (Erzıngan), Gumushane, Kars, Malatya, Mus, Sanliurfa, Sivas, and Tunceli provinces. Generally the Zaza regard themselves and are mostly regarded by the outside World as Kurds and throughout history always considered as such by Persian, Turkish, Arab and Armenian records. Nonetheless a number of Zaza have begun to question their previous ethnic and political loyalties and to search for new models of collective identity. As a result, a particular Zaza politics of identity has emerged, seeking the creation of a distinct nationality''

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/325225/Kurdish-language http://www.zazaki.net/haber/among-social-kurdish-groups-general-glance-at-zazas-503.htm http://gulf2000.columbia.edu/images/maps/Mid_East_Linguistic_lg.jpg http://books.google.com/books?id=dgDi9qFT41oC&printsec=frontcover&hl=de#v=onepage&q&f=false http://users.htcomp.net/kishwork/kurdprof.pdf http://www.joshuaproject.net/people-profile.php?peo3=11560&rog3=TU http://www.let.uu.nl/~martin.vanbruinessen/personal/publications/Bruinessen_Ethnic_identity_Kurds.pdf http://www.prayway.com/unreached/peoplegroups/1951.html http://www.amazon.com/Zaza-Kurds-Turkey-Minority-Globalised/dp/1845118758
 * (1)http://encyclopedia.farlex.com/Kurdic


 * (2)http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/dimli

This is just my suggestion. Wikisupporting (talk) 23:55, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ethiopian Semitic languages
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Ethiopian Semitic languages. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

''You have received this notice because your name is on Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 16:05, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Differentiation in Ito
Hello, I'd like to first thank you for your attention to the discussion regarding the section on differentiation in Ito calculus, which I agree is totally unacceptable as is. I've significantly revised it and have included the fundamentally relevant Allouba differentiation theory. As per your suggestion, I've provided quotes from sources in the corresponding talk page. The version that I'm going to shortly publish is fully referenced, verifiable, and is the most precise iteration.

I have to also draw your attention to the fact that user William M. Connolley is probably going to try to revert it to the current unacceptable version. He, in conjunction with SimonL, have been doing that in a very unprofessional and even bullying way.

Regards, RHarryd (talk) 03:00, 10 September 2011 (UTC).

As soon as I published the revised section with the Allouba Theory (which is certainly accurate), another user (probably in coordination with the above users) reverted it to the unacceptable older version again. They did not even leave it to discuss the issue. The section they revert to violates every argument they manufacture against my version and yet it's fine with them. This leads to only one conclusion, they want to remove Allouba's contribution at all cost, even at the expense of the section accuracy. RHarryd (talk) 03:48, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Contrary to what RHarryd writes, I have a long experience editing mathematics articles on wikipedia. I already commented on the series of single-purpose accounts that have been adding WP:UNDUE content to this article over the years. Those comments were made a while back at Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_27. RHarryd and the previous single-purpose accounts have been spamming wikipedia articles with "Allouba theory". Mathsci (talk) 03:56, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That's fine ... I think I understand that. I have no specific knowledge of Ito Calculus. My only point was that editors are editing that article without providing sources or citations.  I was (and still am) trying to get interested editors to provide citations for the article. --Noleander (talk) 13:13, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * In-paragraph citations for mathematics articles was not the norm some time back; but that is probably more the case now, certainly in most of the mathematics articles that I have created or added to significantly. Usually this is not a problem if a good set of sources has been provided, where the content can be checked without too much difficulty; but when very recent unevaluated content is added that can be difficult. A few mathematics editors have added their own research, e.g. added published content to Differential geometry of surfaces. That research on systolic geometry had been commented on in academic textbooks (Marcel Berger), so although perhaps unusual, was appropriate. Mathsci (talk) 13:26, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, in-paragraph citations are missing from many (most?) WP articles, and I would never visit random articles and demand citations. But when an RfC is filed on an article, it is a good opportunity to spend some time hunting down citations and providing them: kind of a gradual clean-up process.  I've seen RfCs focusing on verifiability, where six editors have spent about 10 minutes each commenting on the article, going back and forth, with lots of hot air.  It occurs to me the readers would be better off if that same 60 minutes (6x10) were instead spent reading the sources and providing the page numbers :-)  --Noleander (talk) 13:41, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Citations should be provided by other editors from WikiProject Mathematics who regularly watch/edit this article. The poor level of citations in specialist mathematics articles is widespread and is a completely separate problem. The issue in this particular case is with material that has so far not been recognized as notable, which is quite different. It's not very helpful to confuse these two issues. Nor do I expect articles on advanced topics like the Ito calculus to be accessible to readers without some prior training in mathematics. Yes, readers should be able to move backwards through wikilinks to more elementary articles and find references which could potentially help them learn. Amd yes, non-technical descriptions should be given whenever possible (that usually takes some effort, if it can be done at all). But no, wikipedia cannot wave a magic wand to make higher mathematics accessible to all readers. Mathsci (talk) 14:09, 12 September 2011 (UTC)